Clark v. Mazgani, 170 Cal. App. 4th 1281 (2009)

Citation: Clark v. Mazgani, 170 Cal. App. 4th 1281 (2009)
Parent Document: Clark v. Mazgani, 170 Cal. App. 4th 1281 (2009)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2009-01-07
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2305176/clark-v-mazgani/ ↗

Full Text

1,194 chars

However, we note there is no merit in Mazgani’s contention that she is (or may be) somehow harmed because, although the trial court granted her SLAPP motion as to every claim, in the minute order issued after the hearing on the motion, the court observed Clark might still be owed the relocation fee, and noted its order was made “without prejudice as to any . . . claims which Clark may elect to bring” regarding payment of the relocation fee. Mazgani’s entire appeal is devoted to the assertion that, having granted the SLAPP motion, the court was divested of authority to dismiss any claim “without prejudice,” or to invite Clark to “plead around” the facts that had made her original allegations vulnerable to the motion to strike. First, even if Mazgani’s legal argument was correct it would be irrelevant. Clark did not seek leave to amend or file a new action; Mazgani has not shown how she is harmed by the court’s ruling. Second, any legitimate fear Mazgani may have had was put to rest shortly after the hearing on the SLAPP motion, when the parties met to argue Mazgani’s motion for attorneys’ fees. Following that hearing, the court entered judgment dismissing Clark’s entire action

Other Sections in This Document (68)

Full Text